Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: ranked typeahead ordering, the returned field set, and an anti-hallucination rule ('do not invent company ids or slugs') plus a documented empty-result path.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, scope, and return fields before the usage and fallback sentences. Five sentences is slightly long, but each carries distinct operational value (trigger, fallback, failure messaging), so there is minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained, yet the description still names the key fields. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the description covering trigger, downstream use, and empty-result handling, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: q (min 2, max 80) and limit (default 5, max 20) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates that lookup is by name or slug but adds no syntax, matching, or formatting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('search the Worklittle market company index by name or slug') with the result shape and ranking behavior ('ranked typeahead'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_jobs, which is referenced by name as the downstream consumer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit trigger: 'Use when the user names an employer and you need a real slug/id for search_jobs company= filters, job alerts, or automations.' It also prescribes behavior on zero hits (try alternate spellings, then report the employer is not indexed and offer close matches), which is unusually actionable routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.